Blowing some guy in front of 80 000 people is NOT having “sex”. It’s degrading, humiliating, SLUTTY behaviour and #slanegirl is finding that out the hard way.

The rough and dirty story: on August 17th, at an Eminem concert held at Slane Castle in Ireland, in front of a huge crowd of people, a 17 year old girl willingly gave blowjobs to two different guys and was filmed in all her glory. She is now an impromptu pornstar all over social media.

First up, the age of consent in Ireland is 17, so everyone can fuck right off with all the “child-porn” bullshit. Attempting to cast some slutty 17 year old chick as the “victim” of child-pornographers really pisses me off wickedly.

There are REAL children being abused and filmed in utterly sickening ways, and all the “who can I blame because I’m a fucking whore” dance accomplishes is to dilute the true horror of what child pornography actually entails. The link below will take you to a report on the effect exposure to real child pornography has on investigators. It isn’t pretty.

“Employee was crying uncontrollably after viewing multiple images of child pornography the day he found out his wife was pregnant with their first child.”

“In general, everyone seems to be shocked and disgusted at what they have to view. This usually turns into anger at the suspect.”

You can bet your ass these officers aren’t crying uncontrollably at images of horny teenagers willingly engaging in public sexual activity.

Secondly, this girl is not being shamed for having sexual desire or for having sex. Willingly blowing some guy she may nor may not have known is NOT having sex. Oral sex may be a form of sexual activity, but it is NOT having sex. Sex is something two (or more – whatever turns your crank) people have together. Having sex is engaging in MUTUALLY pleasurable physical communion.

A culture that hates women for having sex is one that simply hates women.

Oh fuck off. If sex boils down to a dick in a hole, then rape is sex, right?

Bullshit. Whatever this girl was doing, it wasn’t “having sex”.

How fascinating, don’t you think, that most of the media is pixelating or editing out the girl’s image, but has absolutely no problem whatsoever showing the boy’s face? And then heaping abuse on HIM for his shameful crime of letting an eager woman wrap her mouth around his dick. Everyone is up in arms about the #slanegirl hastag and I have yet to hear fucking BOO about #slaneboy.

Sinéad Rose Lavery ‏@rose_sinead 43m

‘Slaneboy’ deserves to be neutered, with no anaesthetic. #slaneboy

E K D ‏@Leeds_Demon 1h

I wonder what #Slaneboy’s Mum hoped he would be when he grew up? A doctor. A plumber? A dentist? Or a disgusting little pervert?

Adam McGinty ‏@DoctorAculaaaa 18 Aug

There’s no point giving #SlaneBoy abuse. He openly flung his cock around at a dogging session. He’s clearly too retarded to know he’s a dick

Loophole ‏@AllTheBadMoves 4m

@langho @LiamGeraldShone I’m pretty sure #slaneboy would be considered a rapist.

What is up with all the reluctance to actually call out what happened? SlaneGirl degraded herself, humiliated herself, demonstrated zero self-esteem or self-respect and engaged in an utterly mortifying attempt to garner attention from the boys.

Well, she got attention, all right.

Let’s be clear: there is nothing inherently degrading or humiliating about oral sex. This whole conversation is NOT about sex. It’s about a young woman deliberately making herself powerless, behaving in a totally reckless way and doing so in an arena that was absolutely guaranteed to ensure infamy.

She embarrassed and shamed other women by her actions, and it is no surprise that it’s mostly other women calling out #slanegirl.

SlaneGirl has just contributed to a culture in which women are seen as powerless, without agency or responsibility, on their knees in service to men they may or may not even know. She has not just DILUTED the incredible power of intimate physical connections between men and women- she has DESTROYED it. Turned what should be an act of love and caring into something gross and ugly and foul.

And other women are rightfully furious at her.

Think about the reverse. Actually, don’t think about it: here’s an image of the reverse. Totally, 100% NOT SAFE FOR WORK.

This is every bit as disgusting and degrading and infuriating. Again, it’s not about sex. Is that his girlfriend? Does he know her? Who fucking cares? Grappling in the dirt outside the toilets in full view of other people is revolting.

The really, really, infuriating thing about the whole SlaneGirl debacle is that she is going to pay and pay and pay for this for a long time. Because that poor girl bought the lies. She bought the lie that blowing a couple of guys would make her cool and fun and interesting and empowered and that being a slut is just totally awesome.

Nobody hates SlaneGirl for having or wanting sex. Bullshit. They hate SlaneGirl for making sex worthless. The ability and desire to offer and receive sexual pleasure is one of women’s greatest powers, and always will be. Women are biologically designed to use sex to bond with another human being. Sex is inextricably linked with love and affection and caring and closeness.

SlaneGirl openly trashed one of the most human, loving activities, and in doing so, helped perpetuate the idea that relationships between men and women boil down to nothing but crass power relations. And then she put women in the losing position.

What did SlaneGirl get out of that whole horrible day? Besides two mouthfuls of cum? What in the name of god did she think she would gain from doing that? Who made her believe her place in life is on her knees sucking dick in front of an audience? Who made her hate herself so much? I actually feel sick with sorrow that such a young woman made such a public, awful mistake. I hope she can at least hold on to the knowledge that soon enough, there will be another young woman to replace her in the public imagination.

Another young woman who has bought all the same lies.

Is anyone the slightest bit surprised that SlaneGirl is now trying to turn her own epically stupid sluttiness into sexual assault? Pass the blame, honey. You give it a try.

“The teenager has not been medically fit enough to make a formal statement yet, but when that happens this could turn into a sexual assault investigation.”

What are we doing as a culture when young women actually, genuinely believe that blowjobs amount to sex and that their worth can be measured in oral technique? SlaneBoy doesn’t get a free pass here. He demonstrated zero respect for SlaneGirl, and he refused the opportunity to be the White Knight and save SlaneGirl from herself. And isn’t it just hilarious that Jezebel is the one to take SlaneBoy and everyone else to task for not white knighting the Princess?

Wouldn’t it be cool if we lived in a world where people took care of a their fellow humans in compromised states, rather than taking photos of them to post online?

But why WOULD he respect SlaneGirl, when she clearly has no respect for herself? Why SHOULD he be a saviour? Why should he care, one way or another?

The whole social contract is broken, smashed into smithereens. I seriously wonder if it can be repaired. One thing for certain is that the feminist media does not WANT it repaired. The more girls who sacrifice themselves willingly on the altar of sluthood, the better it is to rework society into a collective where meaningful relationships between men and women become all but impossible.

SlaneGirl should have spent more time listening to Eminem.

But I guess that’s just what sluts do, how could it ever be just us two

I’d never love you enough to trust you, we just met and I just fucked you…

On the one hand, I’m very sorry that SlaneGirl is the unwitting poster girl for why slut culture is actually devastating for women and not the tiniest bit empowering. But I’m also pleased to see so many women react with fury and push back against the idea that the proper place for them is on their knees.

Your first point is invalid. I think you’re missing the point. Most of us know the age for sexual consent is 17; that’s not where the Child Pornography issue lies There is a difference between the age of consent for sex & the age of consent for porn/prostitution etc. Whoever put this online is automatically guilty of distributing an indecent image of a child if they knew she was under 18 – THAT’S where the porn thing comes in

Under age of consent does not equal to “child”. 17 is not a child, JB is right in that. 17 isn’t a child in any country regardless of age of consent. The use of “child” in this story is to tug at the heartstrings and that’s it.

Goober

Laura makes a valid point here. Depending on the laws in the jurisdiction in which this occurred, it could absolutely still be technically kiddie porn to create and disseminate pics of this incident.

For instance, in the state of Washington the age of consent for sex is 16 (with a few unimportant stipulations) whereas the age of consent to be photographed while having sex is 18. So you could absolutely have a situation where you could screw some chicks brains out legally, but go to jail for taking pics while doing so.

The law is an ass.

zykos

I wonder if the story happened differently, slaneboy giving oral sex to slanegirl in public, would anyone have posted pictures of it? Would anyone shame slaneboy as a beta who degrades himself in public? Would anyone would have called it sexual abuse, and if yes, who would be cast as the victim?

Another hypothetical, what if slanegirl was 18? There would be no way to cry about child porn, how would they spin it? Just rape, i.e. sexual acts without consent, when the offending material shows enthusiastic participation? Would they have tried to involve drugs and alcohol to use the argument that an intoxicated woman could not have consented, therefore someone who was present there must have been a rapist?

I haven’t seen any mention of the age of slaneboy, and since child pornography is being discussed, it makes it look like he was over 18 (probably a few months older than the girl). What if it had been the other way around, i.e. both of them, close in age, but him underage and her supposedly an adult by most western standards. What then? Would anyone have called her a rapist?

I guess my overarching question is: what changes in circumstances in this story would have made people not treat the woman as a victim?

Modern Drummer

Hmmm… It really is sad to see this.
Although I joke about sluts and blowjobs,I really would like a more traditional approach to relationships and intimacy in society.
It would be better for people if we would celebrate the differences between the sexes and the way men and women can work together to make a strong family unit with respect for each other.
Oh,but if we did that we might actually have these things called families and healthy,loved and provided for children and then(gasp) what would the government do?

Even if I am not surprised I am livid that she gets away with it as a “used innocent child” while the boys get chased down with torches and pitchforks. Feminism at it’s best- women can do whatever they want and men get all the blame for the bad stuff. Disgusting.

freetofish

What’s interesting is the hate towards the guy getting blow. He obviously did not take the picture or post it to the web. He was to busy getting his dick sucked.

Further, I just can’t figure out any which way this can be classified as sexual assault, unless the girl is the one charged. She is obviously the aggressor. He isn’t forcing her blow him, His hands aren’t anywhere near her. I wonder if she got verbal consent, hell he is probably intoxicated and not “capable of consent”.

Hmm, given his intoxication impairing his ability to consent and her sexual aggression, this may in fact be sexual assault……by her!

One small quibble- whether or not blowing a guy is “having sex” it is still a sex act. So I wouldn’t say it has nothing to do with sex and ask why everyone is bringing sex into it. It’s still a sex act, still validly coupled with sex in general.

I can understand that. The problem is that the feminists don’t care. So saying “it’s not really sex” is not something that they can even begin to understand. Funny enough, most think microwaving a mea is “cooking”, too. I’m sure there is some deep message in that.

I think you’re missing the point here. The girl is under heavy sedation in a psych ward right now and the family says she’s never done anything like this before. I’m guessing she was either high off her ass, is mentally ill (people do brash stuff like this during manic episodes), or both. Either way, none of this suggests someone who was in her right mind and making decisions rationally. I work with kids that age and you wouldn’t believe some of the serious and dangerous issues many of them are dealing with right under adults’ oblivious noses. Just for example, TONS of kids are taking molly (purified MDMA) at concerts nowadays without realizing it essentially rots giant holes in their brain and can trigger latent mental illness.

I’m guessing there’s a whole lot more to this story than garden-variety teenage rebellious sluttiness.

The family may not really know what she is up to, for one. The mental break could be coming from all the attention/getting caught. We realy just don’t know.

“I’m guessing there’s a whole lot more to this story than garden-variety teenage rebellious sluttiness.”

I wouldn’t doubt it. But the response to it by the public is still bothersome.

zykos

The point is that if your supposedly ill or drugged teens had been involved in anything else than “girl blowing guy in public”, you wouldn’t be so sympathetic towards the girl. Young people at a concert lighting stuff on fire? Jail time. Lighting themselves on fire, resulting in the death of someone? Jail time and trauma. Guy pulling his pants down? Public ridicule, possibly trauma. No one would ever rush to put the blame on mental illness or drugs, they would instead demand that almost-adults be responsible for their behavior.

The girl made the decision to take any drugs, if those were involved. If she was mentally ill, and you argue she didn’t know what she was doing, then she should have never been let go to something like this by people who have authority over her, i.e. her parents. But society would rather put the blame on a guy who is getting a free blow job, his friend who instinctively rushed to record it on his phone like he would have any uncommon occurrence, and the internet for participating in gossip-like behavior. That is the point here.

Err, nobody said anything like that. My point is that people harping on the ‘slut’ issue (on both sides) are missing the actual issue. Many kids nowadays take drugs that are 100x stronger than anything the free love hippies of the past could imagine, which cause permanent neurological damage and psychosis of which this insane behavior is only a single example. Not only that but the rates of alcoholism and binge drinking have more than doubled among minors in that time. That doesn’t even concern you a little bit in terms of long-reaching social effects? Have you even been to one of these concerts or festivals? Antisocial behavior like this is the norm at these events, and drugs/alcohol are involved 100% of the time. Sluttiness might scandalize the oldies, but it never killed anyone. (And just for the record, I’m speaking about both the boy and the girl’s behavior.)

What’s really awful here is the “shaming” of the “slut” and the shaming of slaneboy and of whoever it was who posted the photos online. The moralising is disgusting.

Try a thought experiment: you’re at a gig/festival. A girl is giving a BJ (or if you prefer, a boy is getting a BJ), and nearby a boy is eating out a girl (or if you prefer, she is being eaten out), and your reaction is: nothing. You don’t feel the need to take photos, to criticise (though you might think that the boy/girl isn’t my type), you just walk on.

I generally agree with you JB — you can guess what’s coming — but not here. I prefer the commentary here:

I disagree 100%. Sex triggers the release of oxytocin in both men and women. The purpose of that hormone is to promote bonding – between parents and infants especially – but also between humans with various other relationships.

Sex and touch both release oxytocin.

That hormonally based connection is what I call love.

And there are plenty of things that are natural that I don’t want to see. I don’t need to see menstrual blood running down anyone’s legs. I don’t want to see anyone urinate or defecate. You can keep your snot in your kleenex and well out of my sight. I don’t care how natural it is.

Yuck.

We are not animals meant to shit and fuck and piss wherever we please.

I thought you’d disagree! But to say that the “purpose” of oxytocin is bonding is to imbue it with a mythical, magical power. I don’t disagree with the bonding effect, I disagree with the “purpose”, because that implies an almost supernatural property beyond human understanding. Love, after all, is a human concept; it is a simplification of all that we feel with an oxytocin surge. You are arguing from the bonding effect to a pre-determinate cause.

There’s a particularly nasty experiment in which monkeys and their babies were in a cage whose floor was progressively heated. At first, the mothers shielded their offspring from the heat; but when it got too hot, they stood on their kids, sacrificing them. As I said, a very nasty, cruel experiment; not one that we should ignore because it’s method was revolting, but one whose results we should take on board while expressing the view that it was totally unethical.

But it does show that we are not totally altruistic, no matter how much we might like to think we are; and so much of our behaviour is based on a model of what we think we ought to be rather than what we really are.

(In a similar vein, the best research on hypothermia comes from WW2 sources: do we disregard this because it was unethical, or do we note that, but use it anyway?)

Oh, and I nearly forgot, you say that a blow job isn’t sex; so are you saying that penis-in-vagina is the only “sex” that counts? Because if you are, I’d guess that there are lots of people who’d disagree with you. After all, the Duchess of Argyll, famous for her role in the “headless man” photographs, was found to have committed a “disgusting sexual” act.

But, never fear JB, much as we disagree here, I still enjoy your posts and read every one; and if I don’t post, it’s because I more or less agree with you; and I appreciate the work that goes into them.

I just wanted to say that this part of the comment:
“I disagree 100%. Sex triggers the release of oxytocin in both men and women. The purpose of that hormone is to promote bonding – between parents and infants especially – but also between humans with various other relationships.”

Was really awkward to read.. Ofcourse I understood what you meant but still..

I read this tripe all the time, but can’t ever get anyone to answer my question when I ask:

If love is such a recent, modern invention, then why do some of the very first texts ever written by man, in some of the first languages ever invented, reference love? A book written 2,000 years ago, called the Holy Bible, references love hundreds of times. What is your definition of “modern”? or do you just believe everything you’ve ever read on the internet?

What’s really awful here is the “shaming” of the “slut” and the shaming of slaneboy and of whoever it was who posted the photos online. The moralising is disgusting.

What, having morals and standards of behavior to live by is disgusting? So we should all just drop trou and shit whenever we feel like it, and if I whip out my cock at dinner in a public restaurant and start masturbating, that is just perfectly okay? How about if I do it in front of kids?

I’ve always thought it was rather prudish of us all to not allow loud, stinky farting in public. I think next time I go to a theater I’m just going to let one rip and see if I can clear the place out, because morality schmorality.

Oh, by the way, in case you haven’t figured it out yet – you’re a fucking idiot.

Try a thought experiment: you’re at a gig/festival. A girl is giving a BJ (or if you prefer, a boy is getting a BJ), and nearby a boy is eating out a girl (or if you prefer, she is being eaten out), and your reaction is: nothing. You don’t feel the need to take photos, to criticise (though you might think that the boy/girl isn’t my type), you just walk on.

Or, here’s another thought experiment. You’re out in public, and nobody is committing sex acts on anyone else because they are decent human beings and not animals. How about that thought experiment? You know, even in debauched ancient Rome you couldn’t give a guy a beej on the street without getting in trouble.

Shame? What’s shameful about something entirely natural?

Making a ass of yourself in public IS, unfortunately, perfectly natural. However, just because something is natural does not mean that:

1. It is necessarily not shameful;
2. It is right and proper to do it in public and subject people who’d rather not see it to the spectacle.

Morality or common decency, whichever you want to call it. I don’t fart in theaters because I’m not an asshole. I don’t shit in the street because I’m not an asshole. These kids were acting like assholes, and they should damn well be called out for it.

Romantic love started with the 11th century troubadors; it was unrequited. I’m not saying that there wasn’t affection between people, only that the idea of “romantic love” is one that is about a couple of centuries old. Beforehand, partnerships were based on “allegiances” between factions, dynasties etc. Later, partnerships were based more on a “business contract” model; in these, the support for the other was the “thing”, but that’s not to deny any affection. A look at divorce rates suggests that romantic love is, sadly, often a fantasy. The ‘business” model seems, historically, to have been the most successful.

And wasn’t it Charlie who said to Diana that he, Charles, didn’t want to go down in history as the first Prince of Wales in history who didn’t have a mistress?

As for the Bible, well I’m not getting into an argument about this; if you choose to believe it, fine, but I’d only ask you to critically examine not only what it says but when it was written and why. If you accept that it is unimpeachable then we cannot discuss
anything.

And no, I don’t base my sources on what I see on the internet; I try to find the primary sources for the information where ever that is; and the more I look, the more I find that what we are brought up to believe is what those who wish to control us want us to believe.

Goober

I knew that you would get hung up on my mention of the bible. I’m not Christian so don’t get hung up on the example, okay? I just mentioned it because its 2000 freaking years old and the men that wrote it seemed to think love was a pretty important thing.

Goober

You know, for something that’s only a couple hundred years old, as you claim…

The men who wrote the Bible did have some very strange ideas, and those who came after them were very, very strange people. If they thought that love was important, was it because they wanted to enforce their view of the world on others?

Goober

Why else would anyone write anything?

I don’t care what their intent was. The fact that they wrote about it means that as a concept, it existed.

Since you seem really hung up on the religion aspect here, lets discuss even older texts which are 100% secular to get you back on point.

Dude, don’t try. Korhomme is clearly about as blue pill as you can get. That type cannot listen to reason. Helen and Paris? a love story. Cleopatra and marc antony? a tragic Romance. even beowolf references love by it’s lack. Love is endemic to virtually every ancient fiction. It is the greatest story and greatest tragedy replayed by the human race constantly throughout history.

That whole ‘romantic love was invented by troubadors’ lie is just feminist mythology repackaged and sterilized by college professors, and has absolutely no more value or validity than patriarchy theory, ancient aliens theory of evolution, or virgin birth.

socialism and it’s bastard children, feminism and egalitarianism, are nothing more than a cult. They advance their religious beliefs, even in blatant contradiction of clearly observable fact, and the deeper one goes into the cult the more one loses touch with reality.

I am trying to remember who said it… ‘Every great story is a love story.”

Yeah, I’m going to have to agree with Goober here. It’s true that the idea of “courtly love” was developed in the Middle Ages. Courtly love was unrequited and non-sexual, involving a knight deeply pining for a highborn lady who was usually married to someone else. Many of our modern ideas about romance, and also the word “romance”, come from this period. But I don’t believe for a single solitary second that their was no thing as passionate love and devotion between sexual couples before Medieval Europe.

Many of the graffiti-ed phrases are undeniably romantic: “Vibius Restitutus slept here alone and missed his darling Urbana” “No young buck is complete until he has fallen in love” “Secundus says hello to his Prima, wherever she is. I ask, my mistress, that you love me.” “Lovers are like bees in that they live a honeyed life” “If anyone does not believe in Venus, they should gaze at my girl friend” “I don’t want to sell my husband, not for all the gold in the world”

Speaking of the Bible, the Bible story that comes to mind when it comes to romantic love is the story of Jacob, Rachel, and Leah. Jacob’s father tells him that he can’t marry a Canaanite woman, and sends him off to marry one of the daughters of Laban. So clearly, yes, there’s a political aspect to all this, with marriage meant to cement alliances and link people together.

But it’s a bit more complicated than that. Laban has two daughters–Rachel and Leah, and a marriage to either of them would work for political reasons. Leah might even be better for that because she’s older. But when Jacob sees Rachel, he kisses her and weeps. Jacob offers to work for Laban in exchange for marrying Rachel. “So Jacob served seven years for Rachel, and they seemed to him but a few days because of the love he had for her.” But Laban tricks Jacob so he marries Leah instead, and he has to work another seven years for Rachel. Jacob marries both sisters, but he loves Rachel more. He even favors Rachel’s two sons over all his other children.

You don’t have to believe that story is history to believe that is an actual story from thousands of years ago. So yes, people had the concept of what we would call romantic love before the formal courtly love of the Middle Ages.

Mr. Milker

For someone claiming to be serious about primary sources, your ridiculous “argument” sure sounds like straight out of a random feminist website. There are examples of non-transactional love relationships all over ancient texts, not just the Bible. And your rejection of the Bible as a source of anything is pretty ignorant. We atheists (I’m assuming here) don’t have to agree with the general idea of god, miracles and obvious bullshit, but the Bible is not just that. The two testaments are collections of various texts of very different origins and subjects. FFS, there literally is a mutual love letter in there, the Song of Songs is pretty much that. What difference does it make if the compiler of those texts wanted to believe they were god’s word? They were still written by people thousands of years ago, obviously reflecting their view of the world.

To believe that relationships in the past (before 11th century) were strictly business ones and that nobody had the slightest idea about love above “mere affection between people” is ridiculous. Even worse, it’s intentionally dense.

I didn’t express myself very clearly. I don’t deny that “love” exists, it’s more that I think it needs to be tempered with pragmatism. It also seems to be rather labile, judging by divorce figures (if you accept that modern marriage is about “love”).

Ancient sources are fine, but limited; they present a romanticised picture of what might have been the reality. There are a few glimpses of other worlds; look what happened to Ariadne.

And the Bible; well, you can use extracts to prove or refute just about any position you choose. What about Lot’s daughters, Solomon’s wives and concubines, or what David got up to with Uriah (though this is perhaps a morality tale); not the sort of behaviour most people would encourage. (And Thekla/Thecla? She’s been airbrushed out of the “received version”.)

HiThere

I don’t understand your argument. You said that romantic love was invented by Medieval troubadours, so we gave you lots of examples of stories featuring romantic love from before that period in history. Ancient stories of marriage or sex for pragmatic reasons, or sex just because of lust, don’t disprove our argument because we’re arguing that romantic love *existed* way back then, not that loveless/pragmatic sex/marriage *didn’t* exist.

You say that these stories represent an idealized world, which just shows that these societies saw romantic love as an *ideal.*

I suppose I may be misreading you, and you’re saying that the notion that, say, the *only* legitimate reason to marry is because of love is relatively modern, or that only the obsessive, hormonal infatuation period of a relationship counts as “in love”. I’ll give you that, though I’d say all those old stories seem to indicate that a loving marriage was preferable if possible.

I read those tweets with a detached sense of surreal disbelief. How the fuck was this slaneboy’s fault? Why should he be neutered? What, exactly, did he do wrong here?

Was what he did tasteless? Yes.

Would I recommend that young men disrobe in public and accept sexual favors from strangers? No.

Was what he did ill-advised, and would I be ashamed if it was my son? Yes.

But he didn’t commit any offense against slanegirl. I can’t even imagine how anyone would try to spin this into a sexual assault of some sort.

She was intoxicated/not in her right mind? So was he, most likely. Why does he get the blame when she gets a pass?

He was exploiting her? She was exploiting herself. He was just a willing participant. Again, why does he get the blame while she gets a pass?

They both acted horribly, and they should both be ashamed of what they did, and deserve any public ridicule that comes their way as a result of their act. We aren’t animals. We don’t shit anywhere we feel like it, and if we do, we need to be shamed for what we did. It’s how we separate ourselves from the beasts. Slanegirl and slaneboy both acted like fucking beasts – no impulse control, no sense of self, and no sense of shame, and for that, they should be ashamed. But slanegirl doesn’t get a pass here simply because “vagina”. She gets to sleep in the bed that she made herself, and she needs to stand as an example of what not to do to all young women, the world over. Anyone excusing this behavior is simply perpetuating it, by giving the next girl free license to degrade herself and become the next big public spectacle.

What these kids did was wrong. What is even more wrong is people trying to make what they did OK, because it fucking well was not.

Generally speaking most women, particularly young women ‘Slanegirls’ age, are sexually active. The images just show one woman exploring her sexuality. What does this matter of fact event have to do with everyone else?

It doesn’t matter how she expresses her sexuality. She can be a slut if that’s what she wants to do. Most women (according to polling) fantasize about this kind of public sex with multiple partners situation. So what? They can be sluts if that’s what they desire.

Goober

So if I fantasize about public masturbation, its okay with you if I act on that?

Just whip er out and start strokin whenever the mood arises? Or would you rather I expressed some self control and common courtesy/decency and not shoot man chowder on the lingerie mannequins at your local Kohl’s?

Why are you asking my permission? Its not my role in life to judge OR validate your decisions. Its your life bro. That’s my point in the case of ‘Slanegirl’ its not anyone else’s place to judge her decision to be a slut. There is no such thing as a commonly understood ‘common courtesy/decency’, its a myth, and sluts of all genders need to start breaking down those illusionary barriers constructed by less enlightened generations.

Human history is littered with male & female sluts, promiscuity, sexual exploration. Homosexuals have just achieved social recognition after a long civil rights struggle, sluts (particularly female ones) need to walk the same path. The ideas you cling too have their place, on the fringe, but its time western society progressed and left them behind.

Then look away, you have that right. You do NOT have the right to judge sexual beings expressing their sexuality in slutty terms. Similarly you do not have the right to judge homosexuals, or any other permutation of human sexuality.

I mean its hypocrisy of the highest order because we all have, and do, act slutty. Distinguishing between the public & private act is false, a slut is a slut.

I have the right to judge whoever the fuck I want, whenever i want to do it. I can’t, for the life of me, understand how you’re failing to get that.

If I want to judge homosexuals and say that they are evil and immoral, that’s my right. I happen to disagree with that sentiment, but I’d fight and gladly die to protect another man’s right to say those words if he so chose.

You aren’t quite grokking this whole “freedom of speech” thing. But keep trying. You aren’t even close yet, but you’ll get there eventually.

Anon

It’s not either/or.

Mr. Milker

Your kind of anarcho progressive nuts are just precious. “Social constructs” often do have valid reasons for their existence. I hope you’ll be defending a guy who jerks off in front of your kids at the mall, patting him on the back for expressing his inner slut properly.

I don’t understand what the big deal here is. Why should I care about this?

Is this an example of an innocent young girl being raped by child pornographers? No, of course not. At the same time, I don’t think this is the end of civilization and a giant leap backwards that embarrasses all women either. This one slut’s behavior is not any more indicative of the behavior of women in general than mother teresa’s behavior was indicative of the behavior of women in general.

Since the dawn of time, man has known one simple truth. Some women are sluts, other aren’t. The proportions may change, but the fact remains the same. Her behavior does not harm “the entire gender.” That’s collectivist nonsense.

What did she think she was going to get out of it? Probably some brief, fleeing moments of positive attention from a few guys. And hey, guess what, she almost certainly DID get that. Now, she probably DIDN’T think someone would tape it and post it on the Internet and it would go viral, resulting in long-term public shaming. So she guessed wrong. She was (probably) drunk, made a stupid decision, and it didn’t work out in her favor. Oh well. Happens all the time. Men do it, women do it. Sometimes it involves sex, sometimes it doesn’t.

I don’t think the “lesson to be learned” from all this is some philosophical musings over the similarities between love and sex. The lesson here is quite simple. “Everyone has a camera. Don’t do anything in public that you wouldn’t want to see go viral on Twitter the next day.”

I care because I have a daughter, who will be made as miserable and unhappy as this young woman now purportedly is if she falls for this “do whatever feels good at the time and fuck the consequences” BS that people throw around.

Your daughter will be sexually active, with lots of men and/or women, of various ethnicities and social backgrounds. Deal with it. Its her life and her sexual freedom to make her own choices. Choices that suit her, not you.

And I have never, ever claimed that sex was dependent on marriage. On love, yes. On marriage, no.

FuzzieWuzzie

Looking at this,reminds me of what is at the bottom of slut culture-hypergamy. If competition for top tier men weren’t so intense, behavior would be more reasonable. Just to throw out JB as an example, I don’t think she would have considered Mr. JB if she had to elbow fifty other women out of the way. Normally, I comment over at SSM’s blog and I have been hearing about how single women at church social groups all have their eyes on one guy. This is crazy, wasteful, and counter-productive behavior for women and they’re all doing it.
I don’t have any answers for this other then, as an individual, to just throw in the towel. I didn’t break it and I don’t know how to fix it.

“SlaneGirl degraded herself, humiliated herself, demonstrated zero self-esteem or self-respect and engaged in an utterly mortifying attempt to garner attention from the boys.”

This is just random speculation. So what if ‘Slanegirl’ gets off making an exhibition of herself, its her life, its her rules. Why should she give a damn about being judged or what society has to say about her DECISION to express her sexuality?

This girl and her family need to get a grip on this situation; approach the media, declare that this is HER business to lead HER life as she sees fit, and nobody else has the right to second guess her decisions. Her family need to declare their support for her, as a daughter, sister and most importantly as a slut, as a sexually active woman free to make her own choices, and her HUMAN RIGHT to express her sexuality how she sees fit.

Liz

“This girl and her family need to get a grip on this situation; approach the media, declare that this is HER business to lead HER life as she sees fit, and nobody else has the right to second guess her decisions. Her family need to declare their support for her, as a daughter, sister and most importantly as a slut, as a sexually active woman free to make her own choices, and her HUMAN RIGHT to express her sexuality how she sees fit.”

This is great satire. Assuming it’s satire.

If Slanegirl gets off making an exhibition of herself, anyone and everyone also has the right to chastise, “second guess”, and question her decisions. Public is public…private is private. One relinquishes one’s privacy rights when one performs in public. If she wants to exercise her “human right” to public fellatio (bwhahahaha!) she is subject to public scorn and ridicule in doing so. By contrast, if she wants to fellate a human or cow or horse in the privacy of her home, that’s her privacy right.

Yes I agree shes a slut, but not that being a slut is negative. You have been educated to think of sluttiness in negative terms, judging terms but why should your opinion of anyone elses behavior matter? And more to the point, why are you interested in what either man or woman pictured is doing? What impact does it have on your life either way if she blows and fingerbangs her way through the entire crowd?

The distinction between public & private ‘rights’ is also a false one. The concept of privacy is eroding, generally speaking anything any of us commenting here do in life can become focused on and made ‘public’. Nobody has a realistic expectation of privacy anymore. What this is, is a case of HUMAN RIGHTS, to explore ones own sexuality. ‘Slanegirl’ has a right to do what she wants within the confines of the current laws, and you have the right to look away and tolerate her choices, nothing else.

@ PJ: “And more to the point, why are you interested in what either man or woman pictured is doing? What impact does it have on your life either way if she blows and fingerbangs her way through the entire crowd?”

Personally, I don’t take an interest in what a person does in their own home. In public, I have the concern is similar to why I wouldn’t want to live next to a red light district, or a septic tank for that matter. Maybe she wants to exercise her “human right” to eliminate in public too. Shite porn is pretty popular in parts of Europe. Dogs do it, why can’t she? Especially if she “gets off” on having people watch her eliminate. Who is the viewing public to complain or even comment on the rights of the individual to make crap piles? Just hold your nose and wash your shoes. For that matter, scat throwing is erotic to certain types too. And who are we to interfere with the public enjoyment of a biodegradable product that helps plants grow? Clearly we all need to mind our own business, and duck out of the way kids!!

You do not have ownership of public space. Its open to everyone to use as they see fit within the confines of the law. You are trying to argue that public space is blanketed with this idea of ‘common decency’ when really it isn’t. That is an outdated way of thinking which is being rolled back and outgrown by society. I mean the same way of thinking would see two gay men kissing in public criminalized because its ‘obscene’. There is no such thing as obscenity, its in your head.

Liz

@PJ: “You do not have ownership of public space. Its open to everyone to use as they see fit within the confines of the law. ”

And what determines law?
While you’re working on that one, clearly if obscenity doesn’t exist and is all in one’s head, then ‘judgment’ and ‘criticism’ likewise don’t exist except in one’s head.

HRH Prince Fred of Flange

That was an argument made very stridently by a bunch of guys who wanted the unfettered right to parade around San Fran’s Mission District totally starkers all day any day, and everyone else was supposed to DEAL, because FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION and CLOTHING PRIVILEGE or something. Except finally (for once) everybody else thunk and thunk and took a breath and said …uhh, no.

Dire Badger

‘outgrown by society’ is one of the greatest farces ever perpetrated on humanity.
‘society’ does not mature. It advances, it changes, it oftentimes regresses, but maturity? That’s the worst sort of anthropomorphizing. Humans as individuals can mature, but saying that society has ‘outgrown’ something is essentially simply saying ‘forget the lessons of history, I can do whatever I want without ramifications” Stupid on it’s face.

You’re right, why should their opinion matter to anyone? That’s why she should be free to be a slut and they should be free to criticize it. And you should be free to criticise them for criticising. Freedom for everyone!

Ayiee. Okay, let’s try to unpack this. First, what they both did is not within the confines of current laws — at the minimum it’s public indecency, or some other comparable statute(s). So it’s illegal, right then and there, right? I’m hazarding a guess here, but I think it might have something to do with a majority of people deciding that they really didn’t want to be in a public space that the slane girls ‘n’ slane boys of the world convert into their own personal pubic space.

As for “you have the right to look away and tolerate her choices, nothing else”… well, not really. Everyone has a right to react above and beyond mere silent acquiescence to spontaneous public pubic takeover. Some took pictures of it, and threw them up — almost literally — on the internet. Others talk about it, many in unkindly and less than flattering terms. Some may have liked it and applaud it. Ah well…

Goober

Just like it is my human right to shame her for making decisions I don’t agree with. Welcome to the free marketplace of ideas, comrade.

No. You have no right to judge her. Its her life. Your ideas represent fascism and if we were to swap out ‘Slanegirl’ and her male partners for gay lovers, you could probably be prosecuted for homophobia (in EU anyway). ‘Slanegirl’s expression of her sexuality (as a slut) is as valid as any other expression.

Emma the Emo

Meh, the old “you have no right to judge” debate. It never works, I don’t see why people stumble into that trap over and over.
Mr. Johnston, you have no right to judge Mr. Goober for judging. It’s his life, you know.

I’m not judging him, just pointing that his rights end where other peoples begin. There is a right to be a slut if that’s what a person chooses to be. Women, particularly those judging ‘Slanegirl’ need to embrace that fact.

Ah, I was just being funny… You have the right to judge him, actually, and you have. You told him his views were fascist. I even agree with you that there is no need to get in someone’s face and judge them just for promiscuity, but the judging debate is futile.

Goober

And prosecution for having an opinion is wrong. If you can’t see that then we are on waaaaay different sides of the spectrum and I’m wasting my time talking to you.

I do find it funny that you would agree with prosecuting me in a criminal court for having unapproved opinions, and yet have the balls to call ME the facist.

Freedom is a double-edged sword. You’re free to do whatever you like, so long as it doesn’t harm anyone else, and by golly, everyone else is free to criticize you for what you’re doing. Her rights to be a slut, don’t trump my right to free speech. My rights to free speech don’t trump her rights to be a slut (because, no matter how much I criticize her, she is still free to do whatever she wants, still, in spite of my old, prudish ways). See how nicely that works?

But some folks (what’s-his-name above) would like to prosecute people like me for having an unapproved opinion on these things. They want to deny me my right of freedom of speech so that people like her can do whatever they want, whenever they want, without anyone telling them that what they are doing is ill-conceived, and by gumbo, performing public sex acts on multiple partners in public is a bad idea.

Hard drugs? Don’t tell people not to do it, or you’re a fascist.

Drinking and driving? Fascist!

Any myriad of other risky, harmful activities that you might be into? Goddamned fascist!

But a person that wants the ability to filter other people’s thoughts, beliefs, opinions, and their ability to freely disseminate their opinions, and prosecute them if they don’t abide? THAT person is totally tolerant and absolutely, positively NOT a fascist. Even though that is the textbook definition of a fascist. It just isn’t in this case, because we’re so tolerant and stuff (but only to people with whom we disagree)…

Someone accused those of us that are against the dissolution of some forms of morality as being the ones that are being influenced into believing what those in power want us to believe.

However, which makes more sense:

That they want to dissolve the family, encourage single motherhood and the elimination of relationships outside of those replaced by government (ie, a woman relies on a government instead of a husband for the support while she raises her children) and make people more reliant on them, and thus, expanding their power?

OR:

That they want to encourage morality and the reinforcement of a solid family, thereby eliminating people’s need to rely on them, and thus, reducing their power?

If an evil group of “powers that be” want to influence our actions, which would be more likely? That they encourage activities that increase their power (ie, sluttiness and the dissolution of relational and family bonds?) or activities that decrease their power (ie strong family values and a moral code of conduct?)

Who are the dupes, here? Who is being manipulated? Think about that a bit before you continue throwing out your accusations about me being a dupe of the powers that be. In my opinion, YOU are the one being duped: into relying more and more on them, and expanding their power over you with the choices that you make.

But go on, cover your ears and scream until you can’t hear me. I’m just a fascist. A freedom-loving, individual choice/individual responsibility, government mistrusting fascist.

Yeah, that makes sense…

M4

I don’t really see any issue with some 17 year old blowing any number of guys is an issue unless the establishments owner has rules against it. I will say that I think sex should be the physical manifestation of love between two people, but when young people are taught the physical aspects of sex without the corresponding emotional importance or self respect, this is the logical outcome.

RedPillOverdose

Well my first thought is thankfully we did not have camera phones and the internet in the 1980’s the whole entire rock and metal world would have been one large porn video. Girls losing self-respect at concerts is certainly nothing new in this world. I can recall seeing a gangbang at a Megadeth concert, I have seen guys getting blowjobs behind their speaker cabinets, I have seen young groupies getting shagged on the sidewalk beside a tour bus, and in 2006 I attended a Slayer and Marilyn Manson concert and it would take all evening to describe the debauchery going on there in plain view. I have seen shit go on at shows that all you want to do is turn your head and find somewhere else to be. Many parents would be horrified if they knew what their kids got up to at some of these concerts and raves are even worse. The difference this time? Someone with a camera phone decided to record the event and upload it to the world wide web for all the world to see. But sexual shenanigans and music events have a long history indeed. Teenage girls of yesteryear aren’t much different than today, they just did not get exposed by the web like they do now.

All women should be angry at women who have the WRONG type of sex in the WRONG place with the WRONG people.

Hmmm. Now where have I heard this spouted before?

B

I really disapprove of what this young lady did, but I hope she does not end up killing herself over it.

I bet she’s probably in a mental hospital right now.

Goober

Yeah. It really is a bitch that the consequences for stupid actions are so massive in these connected times. But that is why I am so against people telling young women that doing these things is okay. This situation is proof that it isnt okay. The massive, horrible ramifications that this girl is facing could destroy her, and all of that with the approval and encouragement of the slut culture proponents.

They are lining up, cheerfully encouraging the next girl to feed herself into the shredder while arguing that in theory thereshouldnt be consequences and no one will judge her.

But the real world proves that there are consequences and people will judge them, regardless of whether it “should be” in your opinion or not.

How many young women are they planning to destroy before they realize the gap between their theory and reality?

Anon

Judgy, you truly don’t understand. Let me explain. Many men (including myself) feel that if you are NOT a slut, you are a female supremacist. That is to say, if you think my penis is NOT enough payment in exchange for your vagina, then you obviously don’t see me as an equal. Women who are NOT sluts, tend to be golddiggers and female bigots who think that men should earn the sex, as if these women are sexually generous lesbians or something, who need to be compensated for their sexual sacrifices. Sluts, on the other hand, admit their heterosexuality and revel in it. They don’t want any leverage over me. Non-sluts, however, want to control me.

Example:

Non-slut: I was going to have sex with you, but I won’t now because I’m mad at you.

Slut: I wasn’t going to have sex with you, but now I will because I’m mad at you, so you need to make it up to me with lots of orgasms.

See the difference? The slut views the sex as being for her, so there is no leverage or attempt to control me. The non-slut, however, feels that she is making a generous sacrifice in bed, which should be compensated via money, gifts, flowers, dinners, drinks, love, commitment, marriage, monogamy, social status, citizenship papers, etc… – as if she is an asexual and only men are straight.

Bottom line – I’M AFRAID OF YOU BECAUSE YOU’RE NOT A SLUT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I’m a afraid of non-sluts because they treat sex like a high priced commodity that men must earn! That is female supremacy! Sluts are my only equals – the only women who don’t want any power, leverage, or control. They are symbiotic in bed, whereas women like you are parasites!!!!

Without sluts, I’d be a misogynist! As without sluts, all women would be whores (prostitutes who think they deserve sex for free while men must pay, as if men are straight and women are gay or asexuals).

Don’t judge pro-slut men (or women) too harshly. I feel that being a pro-slut man is, for me, a matter of emotional and spiritual survival. Again, without sluts, I’d probably kill myself, or at least hate all women.

Can you at least understand me, even without agreeing? The reason mostly women slut shame other women is because sluts are “traitors to the sisterhood” who take away female supremacy and control over men, and god bless them for that! What kind of an MRA are you, anyway?

Dire Badger

heh, the first logical fallacy “People are inherently equal” There is not a person born in this world that has not, at some point or another, looked at someone else and thought “I am superior to that guy”, “I am a better sort of person”, “I work harder”, “I am better looking”, “I am more moral”. etc.

Yeah, people earn sex. get over it. There are girls that are not ‘worth’ sucking my dick. the whole concept of ‘earning is wrong’ is the sort of socialist crap that has gotten us into this mess in the first place.

EVERYTHING worth having is worth earning. If something is ‘priceless’, it is, by definition, worthless. Yes, you earn access to vagina. Yes, she earns access to your wallet with her vagina… every social interaction, ESPECIALLY the healthy ones, is an exchange of value of some kind. and with any exchange of value, there is ALWAYS leverage or ‘power’.

Even marriage and reproduction has a dynamic of exchange. sex has a dynamic of exchange. every single human interaction, from a reporter giving you a news story to a slut going down on you in a concert, involves a trade, an exchange, a power dynamic of some sort.

Even your comments here are a trade… you are trading your typing time in exchange for the gratification of having your comments read. the readers are exchanging valuable time in hopes of being entertained or validated. Trying to say that a fair exchange of services is wrong is essentially endorsing theft, or slavery.

Liz

Incredibly well said, DB.

Anon

Sex should be exchanged for sex. If the woman insists that she will exchange her vagina for something other than my penis, she’s implying that my penis isn’t good enough, but her vagina is good enough for me. That is female supremacy. Sex for sex is a fair capitalistic exchange. Otherwise, she’s being a parasitic narcissist, which most women are!

Exfernal

“Should?” Hahaha,

I’d rather think about various “externalities” of that exchange. They differ vastly, depending on the particular circumstances.

Would you care to explain if that matters (or not):The relationship has so far produced four children: Eric, Sarah, Nancy, and Sofia. Sofia, the only healthy child, remains with the couple. The older two children suffer from severe physical and mental disabilities. The third child was born with a heart condition but is healthy after undergoing a heart transplant. All three were placed in foster care.

“Should” anybody care?

Anon

I’m against female supremacy. Plain and simple. If you’re not exchanging sex for sex, but instead demand something other than sex in return, you’re either a sexually generous lesbian, or a bigot. End of story!

Exfernal

Sex within a relationship is a vital component of investment in the relationship. However, it’s only a component, not the totality of it.

Sex without a relationship… well, there is only sex, at least on the surface.

See? According to this model, minimizing the risk of pregnancy “should” minimize the “pregnancy premium” assigned by women when they put out. Feel free to correct me, if I’m wrong.

Exfernal

The answer is only several mouse clicks away:A study of 29 offspring resulting from brother-sister or father-daughter incest found that 20 had congenital abnormalities, including four directly attributable to autosomal recessive alleles.

Celes

I cannot imagine you ever being with a woman.
Enjoy your lonely life.

Anon

@ Celes: This argument is what the MRAs refer to as “the pink whip.” The idea that a man must “get with the program” and have sex on women’s terms, in accordance with mainstream values, or be celibate forever, because “no woman would ever accept that.” As if every woman follows mainstream conservative values.

This is female mind control to keep beta males in line. It has five steps:

Step I: You realize your types of women don’t exist right? It’s a Playboy fantasy that you men need to wake up from, or you’ll die celibate and lonely. So do as I say if you ever want to lose your virginity. Do as the sisterhood commands!

Step II: Oh okay, they do exist. But they are dirty sluts and whores. They are trash. You wouldn’t eat from the dumpster, would you?

Step III: Alright, I’ll be more sexually adventurous, but you need to compromise. A real man appreciates a challenge and doesn’t like things just being handed to him. I’ll compromise but at least show some effort/masculinity.

Step IV: FINE! WE’RE OVER! GO BE WITH YOUR SLUTS! I HOPE YOU CAN LIVE WITH YOURSELF! JERK!!!!

Step V: The man experiences true freedom and happiness.

The pink whip will not work on me, sweetheart! For the record, as a jerk, I’ve slept with more women than most men will have birthdays. And, more importantly, I’ve done it by doing EVERYTHING that golddiggers, prudes, and female supremacists, such as yourself, have told me would result in my celibacy because “no woman will accept that ™.”

I don’t buy anything for women. They buy shit for me (using their boyfriends’ or husbands’ money). Everything you say is a lie, but, like most women, you need beta males to believe the lie, because if the so called “secret society” of “sluts” and alpha males is ever revealed, your male slaves will rebel and the power of the sisterhood will come crashing down!

Or maybe you actually enjoy your nice guys. If so, I wish you well, but as every woman secretly knows, it’s the jerks who break all the rules and are immune to the “pink whip” that get all the women. Or as my best friend once said – “In order to reach sexual utopia, women must threaten you with celibacy a thousand times!” Thank you for helping me reach my utopia! 🙂

Celes

I’m not saying you will be celibate, but I can’t imagine you having a loving relationship with a woman and thus in the end, maybe not now, maybe not in the nearby future, you’ll probably end up lonely.
And I don’t expect my boyfriend to buy anything for me.

We both cook, we both do the dishes, we do things equally and help each other equally (without keeping score or whatever)

And we get plenty of sex 😉 Sometimes barely leaving the bedroom in a day. But that doesn’t make me a slut, but now I don’t fall into any of your categories omg I’m some kind of alien!

Celes

What.
I sincerely hope this is some kind of joke post.
I don’t expect anything from my boyfriend in return for sex…. We have sex because we love each other and because we love having sex (together, monogamously). But according to your definition I’m a lesbian asexual being who demands things in return for my lovely ‘gift’ of sex.

My boyfriend and I are awesome in bed and we do it A LOT, and even though I’m abroad for half a year and he’s still at home, we don’t sleep around with other people. We also don’t do it in public.
I feel like you’re seeing things too black and white.

Nickycky

Um…. so you’re saying that ‘you owe me gifts for sex’ is controlling, but ‘you owe me orgasms for pissing me off’ isn’t? What you describe is still a transactional view of sex – the only difference is who gives and who benefits! You missed the model of sexual relationships that actually IS symbiotic and equal (or at least equitable) – where both parties enjoy having sex and view it as a mutually pleasurable activity. Everyone wins. I don’t see how being a slut prevents someone from using sexual favours as bargaining chips, or how NOT being a slut encourages it. It’s not about sluttiness, it’s about a willingness to admit that you enjoy sex.

Anon

If she wants orgasms, than the sex is symbiotic because that’s what I want too. It’s fair and equal. It’s when she thinks that sex should be good enough for me, but isn’t good enough for her, that I call bullshit. If a woman wants gifts, money, a certain lifestyle, or whatever in exchange for sex, she is acting like a sexually generous lesbian. I would definitely be chivalrous for a lesbian, because she deserves to be compensated for her generosity. But if she told me that she has been straight this whole time, I’d feel betrayed and used. Whereas most guys follow the lesbian model with women they know are straight to begin with. It’s masochistic! Sluts are the solution to male masochism.

Liz

@ Anon: “Bottom line – I’M AFRAID OF YOU BECAUSE YOU’RE NOT A SLUT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!”

I am sorry that all of us can’t be cum guzzling street sluts fellating random penises so that gentlemen of your caliber might be sufficiently comfortable and “unafraid”.

The environment a child is raised in is key to the person they become. Unless you were birthed from a pod this should be pretty obvious to you.

If I have to explain why there is a need for decency and self-respect they didn’t do their job properly. There’s a generation of kids raised in communal existences with free love hippies back in the 60s and early 70s and you can read their thoughts on the matter. Most people don’t like to see their spouse/sigoth/mother/physician with a parade of strange ballsacks on her face, even if you feel you need that sort of thing to feel comfortable around women.

Yes, yes, and yes. These aren’t social constructs that arrived out of the ether, or were imposed by a patriarchy. These are hard-wired biological preferences that are instilled in us by pure evolutionary success. You can raise a kid in a free love commune and most of them will grow up knowing it’s wrong, even though they’ve been taught their entire lives it isn’t. Nature vs. nurture…

Successful humans pair bond and work to maintain those pair bonds for the rearing of children. Humans that do this were, and continue to be, the most wealthy of the lot in any given social and environmental condition. Their offspring:

1.) Existed in the first place;
2.) Were more likely to be successful than those of non-pair-bonded humans in the same society;
3.) Were more likely to produce successful offspring of their own and carry on the wealth and bloodlines of their forebearers.

Why is it so hard for people, most of whom believe strongly in evolution, that we are wired by evolution to desire social conditions which will result in our greatest success?

Isn’t that what evolution is supposed to do?

Evolution doesn’t just result in morphological changes. It works on the brain, too, and the way we are hard-wired to be. it has to. There is simply no other way that we could have survived as a species.

I recently finished “Sex at Dawn” which is an interesting read, though it tends to go after straw-men. Some of its arguments are based on accounts about encounters between Europeans and various peoples during the colonial era. Some of these include things that would be extremely scandalous to a modern audience, like a 13 year-old girl’s first time being a public act (or young men being required by custom to have sex with whomever would like, and risking death if they refuse).

The book suggests these accounts argue for an end to traditional western sexual morals, but this incident shows why that is, at best, a terrible idea. A young person having sex in public is probably not as big a deal when “public” means the same hundred or so people they grew up with, who know the young person, care about them, and have a relationship with them. In a sense, it is private even though it’s public.

On the other hand, when “public” refers to more people than it is possible to know, something being “public” means that it’s “out there” for people who have no connection to the people actually involved in the original act. This necessarily leads to objectification if it’s discussed in the public sphere, and not just sexual objectification, but any interaction about the act by someone who do not know the people involved as people will be objectifying, even if they’re arguing that other people should respect the persons involved. It’s turning people into political punching bags, like the Terri Schiavo case from a while back.

The meaning of “public” in a tribe and in civilization is very different. Which shouldn’t be surprising when the difference in context is the difference between tribal culture vs. civilization. The existence of “private” spaces and “public” spaces allows for people to exist in civilization, ie, with more people than it is possible to even Maybe have a personal relationship. The private allows us to interact with each other on a personal level (and get those needs met) while public spaces (and customs and morals that accompany public spaces) allow us to interact with people who we don’t personally know safely.

Which is where trust comes in. It is possible for something that would be safe (emotionally, physically, etc.) in a private space, but would not be safe in a public space, to be brought from the private into the public. When something is shared in a private space, you are trusting the other people in that space to not bring it into a public space in a way that would be harmful. To the extent that sex is dangerous to an individual when brought into a public space (which this incident seems to show is the case) sex will be fundamentally linked to trust. Implying that sex is not related to trust, and therefore compassion and love, is wishful thinking at best and an outright lie at worst.

And of course this affects relationships. If a young woman thinks that in order to be “cool” she has to seem like or be a slut, even if she’s not or would not like to be one, it’s going to make it harder for the young men she’s in a relationship with to trust her. And then if the young man doesn’t trust the young woman he won’t communicate as openly (which would almost certainly make it more difficult for the woman to be forthright). And if communication isn’t as there you have a shitty relationship in which people feel like they need to manipulate their partner(s) in order to get what they desire instead of just being able to talk honestly. Something that could have been a fulfilling relationship becomes a power struggle.

Which of course, explains why people would want or even believe they Need the power of the state backing them in any relationship.

Ed

*allow us to safely interact with people who we don’t personally know.

Spaniard

I do not trust prudish women.
I think sluts are not faithfull, but reliable women.

Sir_Chancealot

It’s like some of you people have never actually been in a long term relationship or marriage before.

OMG! Women trading sex for favors? When did THIS start happening? (My personal guess is about 10 minutes after Adam’s stitches healed up.)

Listen up boys and girls. There’s a HUGE difference between “No sex for you until you do the dishes” and “Hey honey, I’ll give you a quickie if you do the dishes for me”.

Let’s reverse the sexes.

“Unless you do my laundry, you will not get ANY non-sexual affection from me”, versus “If you do my laundry today, I’ll give you a nice, long back rub without expecting sex”.

See the difference? If you can’t, you are either infantile, or you have never been in a long term relationship/marriage.

Ask around, people. If a woman doesn’t use sex as a means of control, but use sex as a means of “bribery” to get something right away, there’s not a sane, healthy, MASCULINE guy in the world who would object to that. He might say “No”, but he certainly won’t OBJECT to it. Hell, if she does it right, a wife bribing her husband with sex is kinda hot.

If this girl is in a psych ward, it’s because her hamster was SHATTERED. She can’t claim plausible deniability. Everyone in the whole world saw her being a slut, LIKING IT, and not being able to deny it. THAT’S what caused her to snap. Not drugs.

Much like Monica Lewinsky, no guy in the world is going to see her as anything but a cum dumpster now. That’s truly sad, but those are the consequences of her actions. There will be NO self respecting man (i.e., alphas or betas) that are going to be with that chick, so now she relegates herself to the bottom rung of men because of her actions. Again, that is sad, but those are the consequences

Judge her? Nah, I’m not going to judge her. She can come over and blow me any time. I’m just sure as fuck not going to date or kiss her. Haha!

ABSOLUTELY ! No wonder! even fucking an inanimate object is considered some kind of a ‘liberating’ experience.

Celes

Have you seen this yet? D:
I’d love to see you do an article on that, man I was -this- close to throwing up hahaa.. especially the part at 4:04 wtf.. As if Blurred Lines wasn’t bad enough already. Well at least I guess this time it’s more like the girl is harrassing the guy.

“Listen up boys and girls. There’s a HUGE difference between “No sex for you until you do the dishes” and “Hey honey, I’ll give you a quickie if you do the dishes for me”.

Ask around, people. If a woman doesn’t use sex as a means of control, but use sex as a means of “bribery” to get something right away, there’s not a sane, healthy, MASCULINE guy in the world who would object to that. He might say “No”, but he certainly won’t OBJECT to it. Hell, if she does it right, a wife bribing her husband with sex is kinda hot.”
.
Pathetic. Your version of masculinity is weirdly effeminate, too.